# Mathematics

### #41

Posted 21 June 2005 - 06:35 AM

### #42

Posted 21 June 2005 - 07:42 AM

DJP

### #43

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:08 AM

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

### #44

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:08 AM

I have tried asking that before.Where on earth is all this going?....

### #45

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:19 AM

Oh yeah well this proves 1=2Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Let a = b

Thus,

a2 = ab

a2 + a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:

2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)

Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:

2 = 1

### #46

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:27 AM

### #47

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:28 AM

### #48

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:19 AM

Just people showing off how clever they are.Erm, this thread is ... interesting, but what I'm wondering is ... what on earth is the purpose of this discussion?

### #49

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:26 AM

That doesn't change my statement.Oh yeah well this proves 1=2

Yes I would. Totally nonsensical.

Would you consider 2 = 0 to be a hilarious idea?I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

Let a = b

Thus,

a2 = ab

a2 + a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:

2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)

Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:

2 = 1

### #50

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:27 AM

Careful, someone objected vigorously when I said that.Just people showing off how clever they are.Erm, this thread is ... interesting, but what I'm wondering is ... what on earth is the purpose of this discussion?

### #51

Posted 21 June 2005 - 03:57 PM

Mmm.... I thought you might. It was a trick question. Nevertheless, "Z2" is a perfectly good field, and obeys all the field axioms. In fact, because the integers do not obey the field axioms, one might say that Z2 is a better mathematical system than the integers.

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

medazelim, you can't divide by a2 - ab if 2 = 0, because you've divided by zero. (Assuming your first line was meant to be "let b = 2.")

DJP

### #52

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:08 PM

If you don't like maths, or aren't interested in its philosophy, please ignore the thread. There seem to be enough people here who do understand it and are interested by it to warrant having it.

If you have a strong objection to the thread (maybe it's against the board rules because it could be considered to contain non-Biblical arguments about creation) then please make your objection plain without insulting anyone.

DJP

### #53

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:12 PM

### #54

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:34 PM

Oh, yeah I knew that. err I was just testingNo it doesnt, because a2 - ab = 0 and as Flappie rightly states, you cannot divide by 0.Oh yeah well this proves 1=2

Let a = b

Thus,

a2 = ab

a2 + a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 = a2 + ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab

2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:

2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)

Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:

2 = 1

### #55

Posted 21 June 2005 - 04:36 PM

In other words, unlike logical axioms, non-logical axioms are not valid in all contexts. Clearly, something that is not true "in any possible universe, under any possible interpretation and with any assignment of values" cannot be claimed to be objectively "true".

But if we take into consideration the context and carry it with us to different universes then the non-logical axiom will remain true. The parallel postulate might be proven false if we take into consideration the vast distances of the universe. The results would vary again if went to a donut shaped universe. But The parallel postulate can be proven true as long as its on a 2D plane and it will remain universal truth provided we are dealing with flat surfaces.

Right??

**Edited by medazelim, 21 June 2005 - 04:38 PM.**

### #56

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:20 PM

But this means you don't have two water droplets any more, you have one. Adanac, that sounded dreadfully like the poor analogies used to in attempts to support the trinity.What if you lived in a total fluid based society? If you have two water droplets that combine how much do you have? One water droplet. Therefore 2 can equal 1.

### #57

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:21 PM

That doesn't change the truth of what I said.Mmm.... I thought you might. It was a trick question. Nevertheless, "Z2" is a perfectly good field, and obeys all the field axioms. In fact, because the integers do not obey the field axioms, one might say that Z2 is a better mathematical system than the integers.

I was referring to the original hilarious (and incredibly relevant), argument that 1+1 /= 2.

### #58

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:24 PM

Yes, it's grossly interesting. I'm sure we all agree with that.Adanac & Fort, the philosophy of mathematics is an interesting subject.

It's especially interesting when we can discuss it in public.

I happen to think that it has theological relevance and I think Skeptic agrees.

I haven't seen this discussion go anywhere near that direction.

The implied question is "what is the place of mathematics in the creation?" — see Skeptic's long post to me that I haven't responded to yet.

I haven't seen that question implied even remotely.

If you don't like maths, or aren't interested in its philosophy, please ignore the thread. There seem to be enough people here who do understand it and are interested by it to warrant having it.

Well I was being asked certain questions.

If you have a strong objection to the thread (maybe it's against the board rules because it could be considered to contain non-Biblical arguments about creation)...

Please don't assume motives and issue these kinds of provocative statements. They will only end up deleted.

### #59

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:24 PM

I believe you've put your finger on the issue.I find mathematics supremely fascinating and enjoy showing off how clever I am with the rest of you. I'm just not as clever as you guys so can't show off as much, but 10 out of 10 for effort.

### #60

Posted 21 June 2005 - 05:47 PM

I quite agree.But this means you don't have two water droplets any more, you have one. Adanac, that sounded dreadfully like the poor analogies used to in attempts to support the trinity.What if you lived in a total fluid based society? If you have two water droplets that combine how much do you have? One water droplet. Therefore 2 can equal 1.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users